Quote from: whitegoddess on Today at 05:45:39 AM
"I don't know if there is one. She said that what she puts in her report is when there are matches. She claimed that didn't match anything." So say this shit during a bench conference without jurors to hear, and then, claim differently during trial! Freakin amazing. stare
I don't think Lisa S testified the blue wax on Ex. 44 was a match to anything. Nobody asked. I don't think Lisa S testified that the blue wax was not in a report. Nobody asked. I don't think Lisa S testified that the defense lawyers were unaware of her wax discovery until she testified. Nobody asked. It's not Burnett's fault. Nobody objected; nobody claimed surprise; nobody requested that Lisa S return to the stand to ask her questions; nobody requested an instruction to the jury.
Theer i go again, should have worded things far better. "Claim differently during trial" meaning, to be allowed to raise it in front of the jury knowing a discovery of blue wax was not contained in
any Report. L.S was admitted as an Expert Witness - a trace evidence Witness. It was kind of significant to be able to assure that magical discovery was noted in writing some freakin where - right? And not just a memory? How downright sneaky of Fogelman to discuss it in front of the jury, in spite of claiming during his bench conference he didn't know if this discovery of blue candle was was even in a report to begin with. Fogelman clearly had the knowledge that her magical discovery
wasn't in any report somewhere because he
had her reports, and,
knew that it didn't match anything so it wouldn't be in any report anyway.
So just throw it out there, milk it for all it's worth even in closing arguements, and leave it to the Jurors to make the connection. Jeese, talk about throwing your clients under the bus
